Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang: Legal Profession Act & Remuneration for Unauthorised Legal Services
In Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang and Ding Pei Chai, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed Choo's appeal against the trial judge's decision. The court found that Choo was acting as an advocate and solicitor without a valid practicing certificate, precluding him from claiming fees for consultancy services rendered to Phua and Ding from 2000 to 2018. The court also clarified the presumption of fact in loans of money.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed; Choo's claim for consultancy fees rejected as he acted as an advocate and solicitor without a valid practicing certificate.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal dismissed, Appeal dismissed | Lost, Lost | Salem bin Mohamed Ibrahim, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Hoon Wei Yang Benedict |
| Phua Swee Khiang | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Judgment in favour of Respondent | Won | Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic, Ng Yi Ming Daniel |
| Ding Pei Chai | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Judgment in favour of Respondent | Won | Chow Chao Wu Jansen, Ang Leong Hao, Sasha Anselm Gonsalves |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Quentin Loh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge of the High Court | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Salem bin Mohamed Ibrahim | Salem Ibrahim LLC |
| Charlene Wee Swee Ting | Salem Ibrahim LLC |
| Hoon Wei Yang Benedict | Salem Ibrahim LLC |
| Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic | Characterist LLC |
| Ng Yi Ming Daniel | Characterist LLC |
| Chow Chao Wu Jansen | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Ang Leong Hao | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Sasha Anselm Gonsalves | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Choo claimed fees for consultancy services rendered to Phua and Ding from 2000 to 2018.
- Choo did not hold a practicing certificate from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2006 and from 1 April 2014 onwards.
- The Judge found that Ding had agreed to be responsible for any liability of Phua for Choo’s fees.
- Choo described his services as “legal services”, referred to the provision of his “legal opinion” and described his fee as a “legal fee”.
- Choo argued that the Judge should have applied the criminal standard, ie, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Choo argued that the Judge was wrong to rely on certain tests in Turner to determine whether Choo was acting as an advocate and solicitor.
5. Formal Citations
- Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang and another, Civil Appeal No 71 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 5
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Choo rendered consultancy services to Phua and Ding | |
| Choo rendered consultancy services to Phua and Ding | |
| Civil Appeal No 71 of 2021 filed | |
| Justice Andrew Phang dismissed the application to be heard by the Court of Appeal | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether Choo was acting as an advocate and solicitor without a valid practicing certificate
- Outcome: The court held that Choo was acting as an advocate and solicitor without a valid practicing certificate.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of fact in loans of money
- Outcome: The court clarified that it is still for a plaintiff to prove the purpose of the payment.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Fees for consultancy services
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for fees for consultancy services
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 281 | Singapore | Cited to determine whether Choo was acting as an advocate and solicitor. |
| Power Solar System Co Ltd (in liquidation) v Suntech Power Investment Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 233 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inference of a loan when a payment is made. |
| Seldon v Davidson | N/A | Yes | [1968] 1 WLR 1083 | N/A | Cited regarding the inference of a loan when a payment is made. |
| PT Bayan Resources TBK and another v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 30 | Singapore | Cited to explain the criticism of Seldon v Davidson. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Advocate and solicitor
- Practicing certificate
- Consultancy services
- Legal services
- Legal opinion
- Legal fee
- Presumption of fact
- Loans of money
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession Act
- Remuneration
- Unauthorised person
- Advocate
- Solicitor
- Presumption of fact
- Loans of money
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Evidence
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Remuneration
- Evidence
- Civil Procedure